Harvard open search

Sure, ZL's research is a little more nuanced than people here are making it seemed. But it still seems a bit too..."un-insightful"...to warrant a job at Harvard...

It's a wonderfully executed project that sets a higher bar for the field. Observational AND experimental DiD. Solid paper that would receive more praise if unemployed ABDs weren't so jealous of her success.

I am neither unemployed nor an ABD, just a person at Harvard who followed the search closely and felt that some candidates were clearly more exciting than others.

There's a question of standards here. It is great that ZL's work was well executed. That's the least we can and should expect from someone shortlisted for a tenure-track job at one of the top departments. But I believe that good political science should be more than a smart and well-executed research design. It should tell us something insightful about the world. Something that we couldn't learn just from being people who read the news everyday and talk to other people about politics. This is where ZL's work does not do as well.

Reasonably people can disagree with that. But that's where I (and others here, apparently) are coming from, not from a place of jealously or pettiness.

One could raise plenty of questions about CF's work also. Hard to argue that he clearly dominates her. It is more a matter of taste. I suppose the underlying insinuation in some of these posts is that Harvard just picked the female. But that seems pretty unjustified. They are both very strong young scholars and which one you prefer depends how you weigh the pros and cons of each dissertation project.

One could raise plenty of questions about CF's work also. Hard to argue that he clearly dominates her. It is more a matter of taste. I suppose the underlying insinuation in some of these posts is that Harvard just picked the female. But that seems pretty unjustified. They are both very strong young scholars and which one you prefer depends how you weigh the pros and cons of each dissertation project.

Melville here. Fair enough—like I said, this is about different standards (or "tastes") about which people can have reasonable, valid disagreements. I have one position (and feel very strongly about it), but understand how you might see it differently. My main point was that I don't think we should assume that people who disagree with the decision are just being jealous or petty.

And for what it's worth, I didn't pick up on the gendered tone and I certainly didn't mean to make any gendered insinuations in my own posts. (Though given what's been going in this website lately, it's hard to fault anyone for thinking everything on PSR is some hot take about gender.)

One could raise plenty of questions about CF's work also. Hard to argue that he clearly dominates her. It is more a matter of taste. I suppose the underlying insinuation in some of these posts is that Harvard just picked the female. But that seems pretty unjustified. They are both very strong young scholars and which one you prefer depends how you weigh the pros and cons of each dissertation project.

Melville here. Fair enough—like I said, this is about different standards (or "tastes") about which people can have reasonable, valid disagreements. I have one position (and feel very strongly about it), but understand how you might see it differently. My main point was that I don't think we should assume that people who disagree with the decision are just being jealous or petty.
And for what it's worth, I didn't pick up on the gendered tone and I certainly didn't mean to make any gendered insinuations in my own posts. (Though given what's been going in this website lately, it's hard to fault anyone for thinking everything on PSR is some hot take about gender.)

It’s refreshing to see a thoughtful post like this on PSR for a change. Thank you.

Thanks for this. It actually makes me feel a little better about life (or at least this little slice of it).

One could raise plenty of questions about CF's work also. Hard to argue that he clearly dominates her. It is more a matter of taste. I suppose the underlying insinuation in some of these posts is that Harvard just picked the female. But that seems pretty unjustified. They are both very strong young scholars and which one you prefer depends how you weigh the pros and cons of each dissertation project.

Melville here. Fair enough—like I said, this is about different standards (or "tastes") about which people can have reasonable, valid disagreements. I have one position (and feel very strongly about it), but understand how you might see it differently. My main point was that I don't think we should assume that people who disagree with the decision are just being jealous or petty.
And for what it's worth, I didn't pick up on the gendered tone and I certainly didn't mean to make any gendered insinuations in my own posts. (Though given what's been going in this website lately, it's hard to fault anyone for thinking everything on PSR is some hot take about gender.)

what are y'all dorks arguing about?
harvard wants the 'next big thing'. So they interviewed a few of the people they THINK may become big in 7 yrs. Some will, some wont. The list could have been different. Doesnt matter who got it or not.

G2+ here and agree. I did not give feedback on the JMCs this year since everyone already knew who they wanted but I found ZLs paper bland especially the theory. It is a shame because there actually were some creative women JMCs on the market this year. At least we got AH.

Sure, ZL's research is a little more nuanced than people here are making it seemed. But it still seems a bit too..."un-insightful"...to warrant a job at Harvard...
It's a wonderfully executed project that sets a higher bar for the field. Observational AND experimental DiD. Solid paper that would receive more praise if unemployed ABDs weren't so jealous of her success.

I am neither unemployed nor an ABD, just a person at Harvard who followed the search closely and felt that some candidates were clearly more exciting than others.
There's a question of standards here. It is great that ZL's work was well executed. That's the least we can and should expect from someone shortlisted for a tenure-track job at one of the top departments. But I believe that good political science should be more than a smart and well-executed research design. It should tell us something insightful about the world. Something that we couldn't learn just from being people who read the news everyday and talk to other people about politics. This is where ZL's work does not do as well.
Reasonably people can disagree with that. But that's where I (and others here, apparently) are coming from, not from a place of jealously or pettiness.

To my fellow Harvard students, who are almost certainly G1 and G2s: stop talking s**t on here, and/or posting your deep inner thoughts about the hiring process. Regardless of your intentions, all you accomplish by posting here is fanning the flames of resentment and feeding trolls who are chomping at the bit of any signs of chaos in our department. Find another, preferably offline, place to air these grievances more productively.

To my fellow Harvard students, who are almost certainly G1 and G2s: stop talking s**t on here, and/or posting your deep inner thoughts about the hiring process. Regardless of your intentions, all you accomplish by posting here is fanning the flames of resentment and feeding trolls who are chomping at the bit of any signs of chaos in our department. Find another, preferably offline, place to air these grievances more productively.

LOL

> Wants to avoid impression that there is discord in their department.